create_attribute

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description discloses a key behavioral trait: this tool does not add values to the attribute, and a separate call is required. However, with only openWorldHint:false in annotations and no other safety or mutation hints, the description could have added more context about duplication behavior, permissions, or response format. It partially compensates for sparse annotations but doesn't fully disclose behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and enriched with a relevant example ('e.g. 500g, 1kg'). Every word earns its place—no filler, no repetition of schema details, and no tangential information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a creation tool with five parameters (most optional), the description provides enough workflow context to guide the agent: start here, then use create_attribute_term. It lacks output schema and doesn't mention return values, but the absence is mitigated by the simplicity of the tool and the clear next-step reference. The description is complete enough for correct invocation in most scenarios.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already provides 100% description coverage for all five parameters, including examples and defaults. The description adds minimal parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, except implicitly suggesting a 'Weight' attribute example. With schema coverage that high, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with 'Create a global product attribute,' which is a specific verb+resource pair that clearly identifies the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'create_attribute_term' by explicitly positioning the latter as the next step for adding values, making the scope unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context by stating this tool creates the attribute itself and directs the user to 'create_attribute_term' for adding values. While it doesn't explicitly say when not to use this tool, the guidance establishes the correct workflow and unobtrusively signals that this is not for term creation.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.